The last 7 major finals Djokovic won were played against people who'd never won a major

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
It's pretty interesting how certain tribally affiliated people here have said for years Federer had an easy run early in his career.

Yet, of the last 7 major finals Djokovic won ALL were played against people who'd never won a major. 5 of them still haven't.

Federer by contrast... Of his last 7 major wins just 2 were against (then) non slam winners - Andy Murray and Robin Soderling. In that same period his losses were ALL against players who had already won at least 7 majors.

Additional context. Do the same for Nadal and his last 7 major final wins, just 1 was against a (then) slam winner - Djokovic. Two of the non-winners have since gone onto win majors, Thiem and Medvedev.
 

SonnyT

Legend
Well, the only multi-slam player is Nadal. And unlike Djokovic at RG, Nadal is no expert at getting to business end of AO & Wimb. So you get to beat the person across the net.
 

SonnyT

Legend
In fact Federer has only 2 slams that impressed me: '07 & '13 Wimbledon. '17 AO was impressive too, but Djokovic had a bum elbow, or else he would've stopped Fed, as always.

2 out of 20 ain't bad!
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Lol come on. I mean like three of those slams he was only one of 4 players in the entire draw who had ever won a slam.

2023 French Open, the only players in the entire 128 person draw who had won a slam were himself, Alcaraz, Wawrinka and Medvedev. - Thiem, Cilic, Murray and Nadal all withdrew.
2022 Wimbledon, the only players who'd won one were himself, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Again, withdrawals were Thiem and Cilic. Medvedev wasn't allowed to play.
2021 Wimbledon, the only players were himself, Murray, Federer and Cilic. Withdrawals were Nadal, Thiem and Wawrinka.

Let's not act like Murray or Cilic are ever making a slam final again, so that left Nadal at Wimbledon last year and Fed at Wimbledon in 2021 as the only player in the entire draw Djokovic could face in the final. As for the French this year, he faced and beat someone who had won a major en route to the title (Alcaraz in the SF).

This seems a bit silly
 

TheNachoMan

Legend
Lol come on. I mean like three of the slams he was only one of 4 players in the entire draw who had won a slam.

2023 French Open, the only players in the entire 128 person draw who had won a slam were himself, Alcaraz, Wawrinka and Medvedev.
2022 Wimbledon, the only players in the entire 128 person draw who had won a slam were himself, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Thiem and Cilic withdrew. Medvedev wasn't allowed to play.
2021 Wimbledon, the only players were himself, Murray, Federer and Cilic. Withdrawals were Nadal, Thiem and Wawrinka.

Let's not act like Murray or Cilic are ever making a slam final again, so that left Nadal at Wimbledon last year and Fed at Wimbledon in 2021 as the only person in the entire draw Djokovic could face in the final. As for the French this year, he faced and beat someone who had won a major en route to the title (Alcaraz in the SF).

This seems a bit sill.y
Even you can see the agenda here..lol
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
It's pretty interesting how certain tribally affiliated people here have said for years Federer had an easy run early in his career.

Yet, of the last 7 major finals Djokovic won ALL were played against people who'd never won a major. 5 of them still haven't.

Federer by contrast... Of his last 7 major wins just 2 were against (then) non slam winners - Andy Murray and Robin Soderling. In that same period his losses were ALL against players who had already won at least 7 majors.

Additional context. Do the same for Nadal and his last 7 major final wins, just 1 was against a (then) slam winner - Djokovic. Two of the non-winners have since gone onto win majors, Thiem and Medvedev.
Joker has definitely benefitted from a weak field the last few years and Rafa got a couple in that time also. But in Feds early days he also had a very weak field to get his first few majors.
 

zuluzazu

Hall of Fame
It's pretty interesting how certain tribally affiliated people here have said for years Federer had an easy run early in his career.

Yet, of the last 7 major finals Djokovic won ALL were played against people who'd never won a major. 5 of them still haven't.

Federer by contrast... Of his last 7 major wins just 2 were against (then) non slam winners - Andy Murray and Robin Soderling. In that same period his losses were ALL against players who had already won at least 7 majors.

Additional context. Do the same for Nadal and his last 7 major final wins, just 1 was against a (then) slam winner - Djokovic. Two of the non-winners have since gone onto win majors, Thiem and Medvedev.
Bruh Medvedev was a slam winner when Rafa beat him at AO
 
Oh I just LOVE this thread. Djokofans are the KINGS of cherry picked stats ("oh Nadal hasn't won so and so "off clay" since 2013"; "Fed played in a "weak era" and that's why he won"; "Nadal hasn't beat NoVaxx on a rebound ace court when the roof is open on a Saturday since 2014" etc)

Now that it's being turned back against them with this accuracy, they're in a TIZZY lmao. Beating mentally weak Tsitsipas, ridiculous Kyrgios, Ruud, Berretini in a COVID Wimby, etc...takes the shine off of those perceived wins that make him "the GOAT" in their minds
 

accidental

Hall of Fame
Is it really his fault Federer and Nadal couldn’t hold their bodies together enough to limp into each of those finals
 

pj80

Legend
Not as weak as the last 7 years. Nothing wrong with his first 6 majors as far as players beaten. 2006-early 2007 saw some pretty easy slam wins even with Nadal at 2006 Wimb and Roddick at 2006 USO playing good matches.
so what do you suggest? should we do a petition to shave off Djokers slam count? And perhaps give some to Federer so that he leads the slam race because of the impact he had on Rolex and Nike commercials?
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Nadal failed to move beyond the 4th round of USO 2022 that had the current weak field without Djokovic. Somehow arguments from some Nadal fans end up making losing better than winning.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Oh I just LOVE this thread. Djokofans are the KINGS of cherry picked stats ("oh Nadal hasn't won so and so "off clay" since 2013"; "Fed played in a "weak era" and that's why he won"; "Nadal hasn't beat NoVaxx on a rebound ace court when the roof is open on a Saturday since 2014" etc)

Now that it's being turned back against them with this accuracy, they're in a TIZZY lmao. Beating mentally weak Tsitsipas, ridiculous Kyrgios, Ruud, Berretini in a COVID Wimby, etc...takes the shine off of those perceived wins that make him "the GOAT" in their minds
Drag em bestie :D
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
The most dumbest thing about this statement is, had Djokovic not fought to come back from 0-2 against Tsitsipas at RG to win the title, and then still beat him at AO 2023, this thread wouldn't exist.
Yep. Had Federer lost a couple of early finals those players would then have been major champions when he beat them later so they would look like stronger wins.

That's the logic here. Sounds silly the other way around huh? Yet Djokovic fanboys want the shoe to only ever be on the foot they choose.
 

noelgally

New User
Definitely. Djokovic is benefitting from 1. No federer 2. Nadal no longer a threat and 3. No all time greats (besides maybe Alcarez who is just now coming along).
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Joker has definitely benefitted from a weak field the last few years and Rafa got a couple in that time also. But in Feds early days he also had a very weak field to get his first few majors.

Difference is, Fed was breaking through. That's tougher.

Djok is getting all his ducks at the end of his career, when he's already gone toe to toe with Fedal these guys are child's play

Bruh Medvedev was a slam winner when Rafa beat him at AO

What about their US Final?
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
So you're saying it was even weaker than I framed it? Thanks.
Lmao no, it’s hard to face a slam champion when at one point there was only like 4 of them that exist. Also your point was embarrassing because in two of the slams Djokovic faced and beat a slam champ en route to the final which you so cutely omitted.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Difference is, Fed was breaking through. That's tougher.

Djok is getting all his ducks at the end of his career, when he's already gone toe to toe with Fedal these guys are child's play



What about their US Final?
Breaking through with a weak field is in no way tougher than breaking through Nadal, Federer and Murray. Novak earned his ducks, Federer got 16 for free.
 

Spinman

New User
Such a dumb thread. Aggasi beat Clement,Schuttler,Martin,Medvedev. None of them ever won a grand slam and that makes up of half of Andre's grand slams. Never heard anyone say he beat a weak field.
 

Weirdo

New User
Nadal failed to move beyond the 4th round of USO 2022 that had the current weak field without Djokovic. Somehow arguments from some Nadal fans end up making losing better than winning.
That was a case of a bunch of factors causing his eventual loss. He was still suffering from the Wimbledon abdominal injury, had only one match of preparation for the US Open, and was likely in the wrong place mentally because his wife was reportedly having pregnancy complications.
 

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
so what do you suggest? should we do a petition to shave off Djokers slam count? And perhaps give some to Federer so that he leads the slam race because of the impact he had on Rolex and Nike commercials?
If he had a chance Gunter would physically harm Novak
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Breaking through with a weak field is in no way tougher than breaking through Nadal, Federer and Murray. Novak earned his ducks, Federer got 16 for free.

Buddy, Tsonga isn't much better than SCUD, and was also unseeded in the 2008 AO just like SCUD was in 2003. Djok got a nice duck for his maiden Slam too.

I think this is why they call it "breaking your duck" in the UK...
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Federer by contrast... Of his last 7 major wins just 2 were against (then) non slam winners -

Three. Murray hadn't won a slam yet in either.

The original post sounds impressive until you actually inspect the list. It's three, not two, while Cilic and Roddick make up 3 of the 4 finals vs. slam winners.

Fed beat Nadal once. That's about it.
 

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
That was a case of a bunch of factors causing his eventual loss. He was still suffering from the Wimbledon abdominal injury, had only one match of preparation for the US Open, and was likely in the wrong place mentally because his wife was reportedly having pregnancy complications.

The point I was making was that if Nadal had won the USO 2022, according to this post that would not have counted much because it came against players who hadn't won slam. That he lost (for whatever reasons) helps him in the metric proposed by OP. Hence my assertion that losing here helped more than winning - which is absurdity of the highest level
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
In fact Federer has only 2 slams that impressed me: '07 & '13 Wimbledon. '17 AO was impressive too, but Djokovic had a bum elbow, or else he would've stopped Fed, as always.
So Stakhovsky beating Fed at 2013 Wimbledon impressed you. Such a devout tennis fan gracing this forum is humbling. ;)
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Buddy, Tsonga isn't much better than SCUD, and was also unseeded in the 2008 AO just like SCUD was in 2003. Djok got a nice duck for his maiden Slam too.

I think this is why they call it "breaking your duck" in the UK...
The same Tsonga who came back from 2 sets down to destroy prime Fed on his best turf?

And don't be silly. When you want to teach a child to read you start with 3 letter words, then 4, then Dr. Seuss and upwards. That's what Fed got: an introduction into grand slam tennis against the likes of Phillippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis and friends. What Novak got was the equivalent of a hardened schoolmaster throwing down War and Peace in front of him and screaming at him to read, rapping his knuckles for every mistake. He had to go through Fed just to win his *first*
 
Last edited:

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Yep. Had Federer lost a couple of early finals those players would then have been major champions when he beat them later so they would look like stronger wins.

That's the logic here. Sounds silly the other way around huh? Yet Djokovic fanboys want the shoe to only ever be on the foot they choose.

Well, it was ridiculous then, and it is ridiculous now.
 

Unseeded Player

Hall of Fame
It's pretty interesting how certain tribally affiliated people here have said for years Federer had an easy run early in his career.

Yet, of the last 7 major finals Djokovic won ALL were played against people who'd never won a major. 5 of them still haven't.
He did, nothing changes that fact..

We need to wait for their career end, maybe they will, maybe they won't but what can Novak do if Nadal, Medvedev, Murray, Thiem and Alkaraz didn't made deep run to eliminate Tsitsipas, Ruud, Berrettini, Kyrgios before reaching final? Novak had Rafa in RG21 semifinal, Alkaraz RG23 semifinal..
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
And don't be silly. When you want to teach a child to read you start with 3 letter words, then 4, then Dr. Seuss and upwards. That's what Fed got: an introduction into grand slam tennis against the likes of Phillippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis and friends.

You talk about those players like they're equals, which makes me think you're about 24

At 2003 Wimbledon, SCUD was unseeded...Hewitt was seeded #1. Only a complete fool would try to group them together.

Holmes said:
What Novak got was the equivalent of a hardened schoolmaster throwing down War and Peace in front of him and screaming at him to read, rapping his knuckles for every mistake. He had to go through Fed just to win his *first*

But he didn't go through Fed. That's a blatant lie, par for the course for you unfortunately
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You talk about those players like they're equals, which makes me think you're about 24

At 2003 Wimbledon, SCUD was unseeded...Hewitt was seeded #1. Only a complete fool would try to group them together.



But he didn't go through Fed. That's a blatant lie, par for the course for you unfortunately
He did. Beat him in the semis
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
My bad just waking up. Yes he did. But really, if Holmes is correct about Fed, then beating him isn't really that big of an accomplishment, no?
Kind of elaborate reply for "just waking up"....
Try the Mono card that someone came up with when he took Fed out ;)
 
Top